{"id":129859,"date":"2007-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007"},"modified":"2015-02-26T18:17:38","modified_gmt":"2015-02-26T12:47:38","slug":"union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 26.04.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMARAO ELIPE\n                             and\n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n                              \n               Writ Petition  No.32046 of 2005\n                              \n\n1. Union of India\n   Represented by The Chairman,\n   ORDNANCE FACTORY BOARD,\n   10 A, S.K. Bose Road,\n   Kolkatta 700 001.\n\n2. The General Manager,\n   Ordnance Factory,\n   Tiruchirappalli 620016.                     ...Petitioners\n\n\n       Versus\n\n1. R.P.Ramesh Murugan\n\n2. Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   represented by its Registrar,\n   Chennai 600 014.                            ...Respondents\n\n\n\n       Writ  Petition   filed  Under  Article  226  of   the\nConstitution  of  India,  to issue  a  writ  of  certiorari,\ncalling  for  records  relating to the  second  respondent's\norder  dated 26.04.2005 made in O.A.No.591 of 2004,  on  the\nfile  of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai  Bench\nand to quash the same.\n\n\n\n          For Petitioners     :  Mr.M.Vinayagamurthy\n\n          For Respondents     :  Mr.V.Parthiban for  M\/s.Paul and Paul\n\n\n\n\n                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
S.PALANIVELU.J.,<\/p>\n
      Aggrieved  by  the order of the Central Administrative<\/p>\n
Tribunal,  Madras Bench in O.A.No.591 of 2004, quashing  the<\/p>\n
order  dated  19.04.2004   and  directing  the  respondent’s<\/p>\n
Management  to treat the period of  suspension  during which<\/p>\n
the  applicant  was  under suspension,  as  spent  on  duty,<\/p>\n
leaving the matter regarding  the pay and allowances to  the<\/p>\n
discretion  of the Management, this writ petition  has  been<\/p>\n
preferred by the Management\/petitioners herein.<\/p>\n
      2.  Factual matrix of the mater is as under:<\/p>\n
        The  first respondent herein is working as  labourer<\/p>\n
(unskilled)  in the second petitioner factory. During  1997,<\/p>\n
since  he  involved  in  a criminal Case, on 03.03.1997,  he<\/p>\n
was  placed  under Suspension, further ordering that  he  is<\/p>\n
deemed  to have been suspended with effect from the date  of<\/p>\n
detention  i.e. from 17.2.1997  on the ground  that  he  was<\/p>\n
detained in police custody for more than 48 hours in respect<\/p>\n
of   criminal   cases.   After  suspension,   as   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent\/workman was involved in four more criminal cases,<\/p>\n
his  suspension was continued by virtue of the order of  the<\/p>\n
Management  dated  20.09.1999  until  further  orders,  till<\/p>\n
termination  of  all  criminal  cases  or  any  departmental<\/p>\n
proceedings that may be initiated.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.  As  the first respondent was acquitted in all  the<\/p>\n
Criminal Cases,  the suspension was revoked by memos  of  an<\/p>\n
order  dated  05.03.2002 with the immediate effect  and  the<\/p>\n
workman  was  directed to report for duty  immediately.   On<\/p>\n
30.09.2002,  the writ petitioners\/Management issued  a  show<\/p>\n
cause    notice    stating    that     since    the    first<\/p>\n
respondent\/workman was acquitted  in all Criminal  Cases  on<\/p>\n
benefit  of  doubt  alone,  which  cannot  be  regarded   as<\/p>\n
honourable  acquittal,  the  Deemed  Suspension  was  wholly<\/p>\n
justified  and  the period of suspension from 17.02.1997  to<\/p>\n
05.03.2002  cannot  be treated as period  ‘spent  on  duty’.<\/p>\n
Therefore,  the  workman was required to make representation<\/p>\n
on  that proposal within 15 days from the date of receipt of<\/p>\n
the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.   On  12.10.2002,   the  first  respondent\/workman<\/p>\n
submitted  his  representation contending  that  the  Deemed<\/p>\n
Suspension  was  passed  on 05.03.2002  unconditionally  and<\/p>\n
hence  he is entitled for full back wages during the  period<\/p>\n
of  Deemed  Suspension  since he was  found  not  guilty  by<\/p>\n
Criminal Courts, and in pursuance of the acquittal judgments<\/p>\n
rendered  by  the  Criminal Courts,   the  decision  of  the<\/p>\n
Management was unjustified.  He has reiterated his  request,<\/p>\n
in  the  said representation, requesting  the Management  to<\/p>\n
treat the period of suspension as ‘spent on duty’.<\/p>\n
       5.   Since   there  was  no  consideration   of   his<\/p>\n
representation  by  the  petitioners\/Management,  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent\/workman  forwarded reminders  on  09.07.2003  and<\/p>\n
24.09.2003.   On  19.04.2004,  the  writ  petitioner  issued<\/p>\n
impugned   order,  rejecting  the  request  of   the   first<\/p>\n
respondent and informing that the period of suspension  from<\/p>\n
17.02.1997 to 05.03.2002  will not be treated as  ‘spent  on<\/p>\n
duty’  for any purposes and he was not eligible for any  pay<\/p>\n
and  allowances  other than  subsistence  allowance  already<\/p>\n
drawn   by him for the said period.  The request of the  1st<\/p>\n
respondent\/workman     was    turned     down     by     the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/Management   on  the  ground   that   the   first<\/p>\n
respondent was acquitted in criminal cases granting  benefit<\/p>\n
of  doubt, which is not a hounourable acquittal  by Criminal<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.  The Central  Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench<\/p>\n
allowed   the  Original  Application  filed  by  the   first<\/p>\n
respondent  quashing  the  impugned  order   aforementioned,<\/p>\n
against which the present writ petition came to be filed.<\/p>\n
      7.   There  were  as  many  as   five  criminal  cases<\/p>\n
registered  against  the  first  respondent  under   various<\/p>\n
Sections of I.P.C. The particulars of the said cases are  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n======================================================================
\nSl.No.      Calendar          Decision of Criminal Court
\n           Case No.
\n======================================================================
\n  1        314\/1997     \tProsecution side has failed  to  prove
\n                      \t\tthe    case    against   the   accused
\n                      \t\tbeyond  all  reasonable   doubts   and
\n                      \t\tthereby   giving   benefit  of  doubt,
\n                      \t\tthe  accused  Shri Ramesh  Murugan  is
\n                      \t\tacquitted under Section 379 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n  2        315\/1997    \t\tProsecution side has failed  to  prove
\n                      \t\tthe   case   against    the    accused
\n                      \t\tbeyond  all  reasonable   doubts   and
\n                      \t\tthereby   giving   benefit  of  doubt,
\n                      \t\tthe  accused  Shri Ramesh  Murugan  is
\n                      \t\tacquitted under Section 379 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n  3         61\/97      \t\tProsecution side has failed  to  prove
\n                      \t\tthe       case  against  the   accused
\n                      \t\tbeyond  all  reasonable   doubts   and
\n                      \t\tthereby   giving   benefit  of  doubt,
\n                      \t\tthe  accused  Shri Ramesh  Murugan  is
\n                      \t\tacquitted under Section 379 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n  4        108\/1998    \t\tProsecution side has failed  to  prove
\n                      \t\tthe       case  against  the   accused
\n                      \t\tbeyond  all  reasonable   doubts   and
\n                      \t\tthereby   giving   benefit  of  doubt,
\n                      \t\tthe  accused  Shri Ramesh  Murugan  is
\n                      \t\tacquitted under Sections 457  and  380
\n                      \t\tIPC.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n  5        109\/1998    \t\tProsecution side has failed  to  prove
\n                      \t\tthe       case  against  the   accused
\n                      \t\tbeyond  all  reasonable   doubts   and
\n                      \t\tthereby   giving   benefit  of  doubt,
\n                      \t\tthe  accused  Shri Ramesh  Murugan  is
\n                      \t\tacquitted under Sections 457  and  380
\n                      \t\tIPC.\n<\/p>\n
======================================================================<\/p>\n
      8.  The  learned counsel for the first respondent  has<\/p>\n
drawn  the  attention  of this court to  the  provisions  of<\/p>\n
Fundamental  Rules governing the service of  the  Government<\/p>\n
employees.   F.R.54-B(1)  deals with  the  procedure  to  be<\/p>\n
followed  by  the competent authority upon reinstatement  of<\/p>\n
any suspended employee which reads thus:-<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      F.R.54-B.(1)  When a Government  servant  who<\/p>\n
      has  been  suspended is reinstated  or  would<\/p>\n
      have   been  so  reinstated   but   for   his<\/p>\n
      retirement  (including premature  retirement)<\/p>\n
      while   under   suspension,   the   authority<\/p>\n
      competent   to   order  reinstatement   shall<\/p>\n
      consider and make a specific order:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (a) regarding the pay and allowances to<\/p>\n
      be  paid  to the Government servant  for  the<\/p>\n
      period    of    suspension    ending     with<\/p>\n
      reinstatement nor the date of his  retirement<\/p>\n
      (including premature retirement), as the case<\/p>\n
      may be: and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (b) Whether or not the said period shall<\/p>\n
      be treated as a period spent on duty.<\/p>\n
      ( (2) omitted)<\/p>\n
               (3) Where the authority competent to<\/p>\n
      order  reinstatement is of the  opinion  that<\/p>\n
      the  suspension  was wholly unjustified,  the<\/p>\n
      Government  servant  shall,  subject  to  the<\/p>\n
      provisions  of sub-rule(8) be paid  full  pay<\/p>\n
      and  allowances to which he would  have  been<\/p>\n
      entitled, had he not been suspended.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            Provided that where such  authority  is<\/p>\n
      of  the  opinion that the termination of  the<\/p>\n
      proceedings instituted against the Government<\/p>\n
      Servant  had   been delayed  due  to  reasons<\/p>\n
      directly   attributed   to   the   Government<\/p>\n
      servant,   it  may,  after  giving   him   an<\/p>\n
      opportunity   to   make  his   representation<\/p>\n
      within sixty days from the date on which  the<\/p>\n
      communication in this regard is served on him<\/p>\n
      and after considering the representation,  if<\/p>\n
      any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to<\/p>\n
      be  recorded in writing, that the  Government<\/p>\n
      servant shall be paid for the period of  such<\/p>\n
      delay  only such amount (not being the whole)<\/p>\n
      of   such  pay  and  allowances  as  it   may<\/p>\n
      determine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (4) In a case falling under sub-rule(3)<\/p>\n
      the period of suspension shall be treated  as<\/p>\n
      a period spent on duty for all purposes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9. The Tribunal considered the  above said rules and<\/p>\n
came  to the conclusion that the first respondent will  not<\/p>\n
be  entitled for full pay and allowances according to those<\/p>\n
rules.   The  Tribunal has referred FR-54-A in  its  order,<\/p>\n
which provides that when dismissal or removal order of  any<\/p>\n
employee is set aside by the Court on merits  of the  case,<\/p>\n
the   Government  servant  becomes  entitled  to  pay   and<\/p>\n
allowances and for treating the said period as duty for all<\/p>\n
purposes.  But F.R.54-A has no application  in the case  of<\/p>\n
the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         10.     The   Tribunal   referred   Administrative<\/p>\n
Instructions No.1(D) contained in the Ministry  of  Finance<\/p>\n
O.M.No.15(8)-E.IV\/57 dated 28.03.1959   which is  retracted<\/p>\n
in  page No.245 of Swamy’s Compilation of Fundamental Rules<\/p>\n
and  Supplementary Rules 15th Edition, 2001.<\/p>\n
         “When a Government servant  who is deemed to<\/p>\n
         be  under   suspension in the  circumstances<\/p>\n
         mentioned  in clause (a) or who is suspended<\/p>\n
         in  the circumstances mentioned in Clause(b)<\/p>\n
         is  reinstated  without taking  disciplinary<\/p>\n
         proceedings   against  him,  his   pay   and<\/p>\n
         allowances for the period of suspension will<\/p>\n
         be  regulated  under FR 54-B, i.e.,  In  the<\/p>\n
         event  of  his being  acquitted of blame  or<\/p>\n
         (if  the  proceedings taken against him  was<\/p>\n
         for  his  arrest for debt) its being  proved<\/p>\n
         that  his liability arose from circumstances<\/p>\n
         beyond  his  control or the detention  being<\/p>\n
         held by any competent authority to be wholly<\/p>\n
         unjustified,  the  case may  be  dealt  with<\/p>\n
         under  FR-B(3); otherwise it  may  be  dealt<\/p>\n
         with under proviso to FR.54-B.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (G.I.,  M.F.,  O.M.No.F.15(8), IV\/57,  dated<\/p>\n
         the 28th March, 1959, as amended),<\/p>\n
         11.   The  cumulative effect  of  the  above  said<\/p>\n
Fundamental  Rules  and Administrative Instructions  issued<\/p>\n
by  the  Central Government would go to show that   if  the<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings instituted  against the Government<\/p>\n
servant    was  delayed   owing  to  the  reasons  directly<\/p>\n
attributable  to the Government servant, he is not entitled<\/p>\n
for  pay and allowances for the period during which he  was<\/p>\n
under suspension on account of  pendency  of criminal  case<\/p>\n
against  him.   It is further stated  that  the  Management<\/p>\n
should    justify   its  decision  in  unequivocal   terms,<\/p>\n
regarding  the  circumstances under  which  the  period  of<\/p>\n
suspension could not be treated as ‘spent on duty’.<\/p>\n
         12.   As  far  as the Management is concerned  the<\/p>\n
impugned  order  dated 19.04.2004,  throws   light  on  the<\/p>\n
subject.  The first respondent  was involved in a string of<\/p>\n
criminal  cases,   five  in  number,  during  the  relevant<\/p>\n
period.  During the pendency of those criminal cases he was<\/p>\n
under   suspension.  He got acquittal in all  the  criminal<\/p>\n
cases  by  extension  of benefit of  doubt  that  arose  in<\/p>\n
prosecution  case,  as observed by the Judicial  Magistrate<\/p>\n
Courts.   No  criminal  case was  registered  or  initiated<\/p>\n
against  him  at the behest of the Management. Those  cases<\/p>\n
were  out-come  of police complaints against  him.   Hence,<\/p>\n
the   absence   from  service  of  the  employee  was   not<\/p>\n
attributable   to  the  Management.   The  Management   has<\/p>\n
mentioned   in  their  proceedings  dated  30.09.2002   and<\/p>\n
19.04.2004 that the acquittal obtained by the employee  was<\/p>\n
not  a  honourable one but was a result of grant of benefit<\/p>\n
of  doubt  and  hence his case could not be  brought  under<\/p>\n
the  purview  of  FR  54-B.  In this  context,  for  better<\/p>\n
appreciation,  we  extract  the operative  portion  of  the<\/p>\n
proceedings of Management, dated 19.04.2004 as follows:<\/p>\n
         “In  view  of the foregoing that the  said<\/p>\n
         suspension  was  justified,  and  as   per<\/p>\n
         existing  Government  instructions  “where<\/p>\n
         the  acquittal is not honourable  and  the<\/p>\n
         case  is  decided  by  giving  benefit  of<\/p>\n
         doubt” the suspension is justified and the<\/p>\n
         suspension\/deemed  suspension  cannot   be<\/p>\n
         treated  as one spent on duty and in  such<\/p>\n
         cases,  the Government Employee  shall  be<\/p>\n
         allowed  only  such pay and allowances  as<\/p>\n
         has been admitted to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Thus,  the management has  justified its decision  for  the<\/p>\n
view taken by it for refusing the pay and allowances during<\/p>\n
the period of suspension.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        13.   The arguments of the learned counsel for  the<\/p>\n
writ  petitioner  gained momentum   while  he  referred  to<\/p>\n
decisions  of  Honourable Supreme Court  directly  on  this<\/p>\n
subject and he would submit that since  the decision of the<\/p>\n
Management is justifiable, except the subsistence allowance<\/p>\n
paid during the suspension period, the employee was  not at<\/p>\n
all  eligible  for any other pay and allowances.   For  his<\/p>\n
contention, he invited the attention of this Court  to  the<\/p>\n
decision of Honourable Supreme Court in RANCHHODJI CHATURJI<\/p>\n
THAKORE  AND  SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GUJARAT  ELECTRICITY<\/p>\n
BOARD,   AND  ANOTHER  (1997(2)  L.L.N.979)  and  important<\/p>\n
portions therein have been culled out hereunder:<\/p>\n
               “The  retirement of  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
       into the service has already been ordered by<\/p>\n
       the  High  Court.   The  only  question   is<\/p>\n
       whether he is entitled to back-wages? It was<\/p>\n
       his  conduct  of  involving himself  in  the<\/p>\n
       crime  that was taken into account  for  his<\/p>\n
       not  being  in  service of  the  respondent.<\/p>\n
       Consequent   upon  his  acquittal,   he   is<\/p>\n
       entitled  to  reinstatement for  the  reason<\/p>\n
       that his service was terminated on the basis<\/p>\n
       of   the  conviction  by  operation  of  the<\/p>\n
       proviso to the statutory rules applicable to<\/p>\n
       the  situation.  The question of  back-wages<\/p>\n
       would  be considered only if the respondents<\/p>\n
       have  taken  action by way  of  disciplinary<\/p>\n
       proceedings and the action was found  to  be<\/p>\n
       unsustainable  in law and he was  unlawfully<\/p>\n
       prevented from discharging  the duties.   In<\/p>\n
       that  context, his conduct becomes relevant.<\/p>\n
       Each  case requires to be considered in  its<\/p>\n
       own   backdrops.   In this case,  since  the<\/p>\n
       petitioner had involved himself in a  crime,<\/p>\n
       though  he  was  later   acquitted,  he  had<\/p>\n
       disabled  himself from rendering service  on<\/p>\n
       account  of conviction and incarceration  in<\/p>\n
       jail.    Under   these  circumstances,   the<\/p>\n
       petitioner  is  not entitled to  payment  of<\/p>\n
       back-wages.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
As   per  the  observations  of  the  apex  Court,  in   the<\/p>\n
aforementioned  decision,  if  the  employee   himself   had<\/p>\n
involved  in a crime, where the Management  had  not  played<\/p>\n
any  role,  though  he  was later acquitted,  since  he  had<\/p>\n
disabled  himself  from  rendering  service  on  account  of<\/p>\n
conviction and incarceration in jail, he is not entitled for<\/p>\n
any back wages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         14. In  UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND JAIPAL SINGH<\/p>\n
(2004(1)  L.L.N.  520), the above said  decision  has  been<\/p>\n
referred and it is held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “If prosecution, which ultimately resulted<\/p>\n
         in  acquittal  of the person  concerned  was<\/p>\n
         at  the  behest  of  or  by  the  department<\/p>\n
         itself,   perhaps  different  considerations<\/p>\n
         may  arise.   On  the other hand,  if  as  a<\/p>\n
         citizen  the  employee or a  public  servant<\/p>\n
         got  involved  in  a criminal  case  and  if<\/p>\n
         after   initial  conviction  by  the   trial<\/p>\n
         Court,   he   gets   acquittal   on   appeal<\/p>\n
         subsequently, the  department cannot in  any<\/p>\n
         manner  be found fault with for having  kept<\/p>\n
         him  out  of  service, since the   oliges  a<\/p>\n
         persons  convicted of an offence  to  be  so<\/p>\n
         kept  out and not to be retained in service.<\/p>\n
         Consequently,  the  reasons  given  in   the<\/p>\n
         decision  relied  upon, for  the  appellants<\/p>\n
         are   not  only  convincing  but   are    in<\/p>\n
         consonance  with  reasonableness  as   well.<\/p>\n
         Though  exception taken to that part of  the<\/p>\n
         order  directing  reinstatement  cannot   be<\/p>\n
         sustained  and  the  respondent  has  to  be<\/p>\n
         reinstated in service, for the reasons  that<\/p>\n
         the  earlier  discharge was  on  account  of<\/p>\n
         those  criminal  proceedings and  conviction<\/p>\n
         only,  the appellants are well within  their<\/p>\n
         rights   to   deny   back   wages   to   the<\/p>\n
         respondent  for the period  he  was  not  in<\/p>\n
         service.   The  appellants  cannot  be  made<\/p>\n
         liable to pay for the period for which  they<\/p>\n
         could  not  avail  of the  services  of  the<\/p>\n
         respondent.   The High Court, in  our  view,<\/p>\n
         committed  a  grave error, in allowing  back<\/p>\n
         wages  also, without adverting to  all  such<\/p>\n
         relevant    aspects   and    considerations.<\/p>\n
         Consequently,  the order of the  High  Court<\/p>\n
         in  so  far as it directed payment  of  back<\/p>\n
         wages  is  liable to be and  is  hereby  set<\/p>\n
         aside.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In  both the decisions,  the Supreme Court has held that if<\/p>\n
the  Management   could  not  avail  the  services  of  the<\/p>\n
employee  on  account  of  his  deeds,  by  no  stretch  of<\/p>\n
imagination,  it could  be  stated that the management  has<\/p>\n
to  pay the employee pay and allowances for the  period  of<\/p>\n
suspension.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      15.  In  this case, as adverted to supra,  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  was  implicated in the criminal  cases  by  the<\/p>\n
police  complaints and after  trial, in all those cases  he<\/p>\n
was  acquitted by the Courts giving benefit of doubt.   The<\/p>\n
learned  counsel for the first respondent in  his  argument<\/p>\n
would  say  that it is the usual practice  of the  Judicial<\/p>\n
Officers  to mention in their judgments, if the  result  of<\/p>\n
the case was one of acquittal,  it is by means of extending<\/p>\n
benefit   of  doubt.   But  his  contention  is  far   from<\/p>\n
acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         16.   The learned counsel for the first respondent<\/p>\n
placed reliance upon a decision of Honourable Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in  BRAHMA  CHANDRA GUPTA  -Vs-  UNION OF INDIA  (AIR  1984<\/p>\n
SUPREME  COURT  PAGE  380), and  contended  that  when  the<\/p>\n
employee  got  acquittal in a criminal case,  he  must   be<\/p>\n
made   eligible to get the monetary benefits for the period<\/p>\n
of  suspension.   The  principles laid  down  in  the  said<\/p>\n
decision are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “Keeping  in  view the facts  of  the  case<\/p>\n
         that the appellant was never hauled up  for<\/p>\n
         departmental   enquiry,   that    he    was<\/p>\n
         prosecuted   and   has   been    ultimately<\/p>\n
         acquitted  and  on being acquitted  he  was<\/p>\n
         reinstated  and  was paid full  salary  for<\/p>\n
         the  period  commencing from his  acquittal<\/p>\n
         and  further  that even for the  period  in<\/p>\n
         question the concerned  authority  has  not<\/p>\n
         held   that   the  suspension  was   wholly<\/p>\n
         justified  because 3\/4th of the  salary  is<\/p>\n
         ordered  to be paid, we are of the  opinion<\/p>\n
         that  the  approach of the trial Court  was<\/p>\n
         correct   and  unassailable.   The  learned<\/p>\n
         trial   Judge   on  appreciation  of  facts<\/p>\n
         found  that  this is a case in  which  full<\/p>\n
         amount of salary should have been paid   to<\/p>\n
         the  appellant on his reinstatement for the<\/p>\n
         entire  period.   We  accept  that  as  the<\/p>\n
         correct approach.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The  facts  discussed  in the above said  case  are   quite<\/p>\n
distinguishable   with those  in this case.   In  the  case<\/p>\n
before  the  Supreme Court, the Management did not  justify<\/p>\n
its decision to place the employee under suspension in view<\/p>\n
of pendency  of criminal case and  it had been paying 3\/4th<\/p>\n
of  his  salary during the period of suspension, thereafter<\/p>\n
the employee initiated proceedings  for remaining 1\/4th his<\/p>\n
salary  for the said period, and finally the Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
recognised his rights to get the said amount.  The  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court has candidly observed  that the  management has   not<\/p>\n
held   the  suspension   justified because,  3\/4th  of  the<\/p>\n
salary was ordered to paid to the employee.  Based on these<\/p>\n
circumstances,  the Supreme Court  held that  the  employee<\/p>\n
was  entitled to get full back wages throughout.  But,  the<\/p>\n
facts  in this case are otherwise.  The Management has held<\/p>\n
the  suspension  was  justified and  subsistence  allowance<\/p>\n
alone  was  paid  to the employee, but not any  portion  of<\/p>\n
salary.  Hence, the circumstances of this case stand  on  a<\/p>\n
different footing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      17. Summarising all, as stated by the Management,  the<\/p>\n
suspension order passed by the Management was justified  and<\/p>\n
that  the  employee  was not entitled to  get  any  pay  and<\/p>\n
allowances  during  the period of suspension.   The  Central<\/p>\n
Administrative Tribunal, on erroneous premise, has concluded<\/p>\n
that   after  the  acquittal  in  the  Criminal  cases,   on<\/p>\n
reinstatement, the employee is entitled for full  backwages,<\/p>\n
during the period of suspension.  The said conclusion of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is not acceptable, which deserves to be set  aside.<\/p>\n
On the factual background, the employee has to be non-suited<\/p>\n
for  the  relief.  Legally also, he is not entitled for  the<\/p>\n
reliefs sought for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      18.   In fine, the writ petition is allowed. The order<\/p>\n
of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.591 of 2004<\/p>\n
dated 26.04.2005 is set aside.  No costs.<\/p>\n
rrg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
\n   represented by its Registrar,
\n   Chennai 600 014.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.04.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMARAO ELIPE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Writ Petition No.32046 of 2005 1. Union of India Represented by The Chairman, ORDNANCE FACTORY BOARD, 10 A, S.K. Bose Road, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-26T12:47:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-26T12:47:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2981,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-26T12:47:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-26T12:47:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-26T12:47:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007"},"wordCount":2981,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007","name":"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-26T12:47:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-r-p-ramesh-murugan-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs R.P.Ramesh Murugan on 26 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}